U.S. Code » Title 28 » Part PART IV— JURISDICTION AND VENUE › Chapter CHAPTER 89— DISTRICT COURTS; REMOVAL OF CASES FROM STATE COURTS

28 U.S.C. § 1450

Attachment or sequestration; securities

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar

Whenever any action is removed from a State court to a district court of the United States, any attachment or sequestration of the goods or estate of the defendant in such action in the State court shall hold the goods or estate to answer the final judgment or decree in the same manner as they would have been held to answer final judgment or decree had it been rendered by the State court.

All bonds, undertakings, or security given by either party in such action prior to its removal shall remain valid and effectual notwithstanding such removal.

All injunctions, orders, and other proceedings had in such action prior to its removal shall remain in full force and effect until dissolved or modified by the district court.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 278 cases (76 in the last 5 years), 1953–2026 · leading case: Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers, Local No. 70, 415 U.S. 423 (1974).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers, Local No. 70, 415 U.S. 423 (1974). · cites it 12× “This case concerns the interpretation of 28 U. S. C. § 1450 , [1] which provides in pertinent part: "Whenever any action is removed from a State court to a district court of the United States .”
Nissho-Iwai Am. Corp. v. R. Sukarno Kline, Individually & D/B/A Frankenburg Imp.-Exp. Ltd., 845 F.2d 1300 (5th Cir. 1988). · cites it 4× “One issue raised by this appeal is whether any deference is owed to an interlocutory state court order once a case has been removed to federal court. In determining not to permit appellants to reinstate their stricken pleadings, the district court deferred to the state court’s…”
Brown Ex Rel. Rhiner v. Kerkhoff, 504 F. Supp. 2d 464 (S.D. Iowa 2007). · cites it 7× “, Larry Markson, Bob Hoffman, and Dennis Perman; and a Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint and Dissolve or Modify the State Court’s June 15, 2006, Order Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1450 filed by Plaintiffs (Clerk’s No.”
Tehan v. Disability Mgmt. Servs., Inc., 111 F. Supp. 2d 542 (D.N.J. 2000). · cites it 5× “Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1450 , “[a]U injunctions, orders, and other proceedings had in such action prior to removal shall remain in full force and effect until dissolved or modified by the district court.”
Avco Corp. v. Aero Lodge No. 735, Int'l Ass'n of MacHinists & Aerospace Workers, 390 U.S. 557 (1968). · cites it 2× “[4] Another question raised here is whether the District Court, to which the action had been removed, should have dissolved the injunction issued by the Tennessee state court.”
Parson v. Farley, 352 F. Supp. 3d 1141 (N.D. Okla. 2018). · cites it 2× “1113 (effect given to state court orders after removal is no greater than effect orders would have had in state court); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1450 ("All injunctions, orders, and other proceedings had in such action prior to its removal shall remain in full force and effect until…”
Lela Tompkins v. Crown Corr, Inc., 726 F.3d 830 (6th Cir. 2013). · cites it 2× “The court denied Northwest’s motion, finding that 28 U.S.C. § 1450 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) precluded it.”
Altesse Healthcare Solutions, Inc. v. Wilson, 540 S.W.3d 570 (Tex. 2018). “" 28 U.S.C. § 1450 . The TRO prohibited contact with patients, employees, and nurses.”
Schmude v. Sheahan, 312 F. Supp. 2d 1047 (N.D. Ill. 2004). · cites it 3× “In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1450 , those appointments remained in effect when the case was removed to federal court.”
Jones v. Dist. of Columbia, 177 F. Supp. 3d 542 (D.D.C. 2016). · cites it 2× “LEGAL STANDARD When a case is removed to federal court, “[a]ll injunctions, orders, and other proceedings had in such action prior to its removal shall remain in full force and effect until dissolved or modified by the district court.”
Holmes v. AC & S, INC., 388 F. Supp. 2d 663 (E.D. Va. 2004). · cites it 2× “See 28 U.S.C. § 1450 (“All injunctions, orders, and other proceedings had in such action prior to its removal shall remain in full force and effect until dissolved or modified by the district court.”
Chaz Constr., LLC v. Codell, 137 F. App'x 735 (6th Cir. 2005). “it is well-settled that they do remain binding on the parties until formally set aside by the district court.”
Show all 278 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.